In re Ashley S.
431 Md. 678
| Md. | 2013Background
- Two sisters Ashley and Caitlyn S. were placed in emergency shelter care after neglect reports and later designated CINA and placed in foster care.
- The initial plan favored reunification with their mother, Sharee S., but the Court of Special Appeals reversed Caitlyn’s CINA designation and the foster care placement.
- After reversal, the juvenile court nonetheless continued CINA proceedings, ordered foster care, and later changed the permanency plan to adoption for both girls.
- Ashley and Caitlyn showed progress in foster care, particularly Ashley with tutoring and improved school performance, while Sharee S. failed to address safety concerns and comply with court orders.
- A 2012 reversal of Caitlyn’s CINA status did not restore custody to Sharee; the Department sought continued foster care and later adoption; Caitlyn’s plan was eventually changed to adoption in 2012, with Ashley’s plan following.
- The Court of Special Appeals and the Maryland Supreme Court considered whether the time spent in foster care under reversed orders could be used to justify adoption and whether adoption was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May time in foster care be considered in permanency planning after reversal? | S. argues such time should be discounted as it arose from a reversed order. | Department contends the full period informs best interests and should be weighed. | Yes; court may consider time in foster care even if underlying order was reversed. |
| Was changing permanency plan to adoption an abuse of discretion? | S. argues insufficiency of grounds—progress in foster care, noncompliance, possible mental health issues. | Department argues best interests require stability and timely permanency; noncompliance supports adoption. | No; evidence supported adoption as in the children’s best interests. |
| Did the court properly balance bond with mother vs. bond with foster parent? | S. contends strong parental bond favors reunification. | Court properly weighed attachments to current caregiver and risks of returning to mother. | Yes; court properly prioritized best interests and safety over purported parental bond. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (2003) (best interests and factors guiding permanency plans)
- In re Adoption/Guardianship of Cadence B., 417 Md. 146 (2010) (weighty circumstances may justify non-reunification)
- In re Joseph N., 407 Md. 278 (2009) (appealable changes and custody review procedures)
- In re Shirley B., 419 Md. 1 (2011) (standard for abuse of discretion in permanency planning)
- In re Samone H., 385 Md. 282 (2005) (reunification duration and appeal rights)